Yes the grass is different but that's not Federer's fault. Sorry but I would go with Federer over Kodes for grass achievements by a huge margin.

Click to expand...

Kodes won a memorable Roland Garros final over one of the decade´s toughest guys, a certain Ilie Nastase.The year before, he had beaten a great clay specialist named Zeljko Franulovic.Federer won once the FO, beating handily surprise ( and deservingly so) finalsit Soderling, who had ousted Nadal in the former rounds.

Kodes also reached 2 IO and won the very prestigious German and Spanish Open.Federer, I think, has 2 Madrids and 1 Hamburg titles as far as second tier cc events are rated, so, they may be evened there.But the FO is, by far, the measure of clay court greatness...

I agree that old grass was not comparable to current rgass.So, it should be said "Sampras is the best old grass player ever" and " Federer is the best current grass greatest player ".Kodes, not only beat Metrevali and won a Wimbly title, he also beat two all time grass ( old grass) greats en route to the USO finals in 71 ( beat Newcombe) and 73 ( beat Smith).That record far exceedes Djokovic on grass, FI, even if we considered that both grass were comparable ( which, as you said very well, are not )

Well it's nice to talk about the players winning many titles in the past but I don't think you can take them seriously when compare to the ATP titles. Pancho was competing against the amateur and then the pro, which was divided into 2 circuits. That alone doesn't have as much weight as the atp events which comprise all all the players. Factor in the number of draws and number of matches needed to win per event. Didn't Pancho won many events which only required to win 1 or 2 matches? I don't care if Pancho won 50 mini events like Los Angeles Metropolitan, it's not worth equal to Roger's one grand slam title.

Link from PC1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics
If you look at January in 1954, Pancho won 9 titles, winning some titles only 2 days apart. It's ridiculous...he must only have to win one match. Today's player can only managed to compete 2 events per month, and winning atleast 4 matches quadruple his chance to win the event. In fact, Nadal/Nole/Fed each only participated in 19 or 20 events per year.

Anyway, comparing players like Pancho's total titles to the players competing from the atp standard is flaw. You can list all of their single titles, but the experts will always have Connors as the record holder(109). You can fool some of the posters in here, but not me.

I will give you that statistically Federer is better in the majors but the better dominance comment doesn't pan out. If Federer is more dominant, why is his lifetime winning percentage slightly lower than Connors at 81.55 to 81.76? If Federer is more dominant he certainly doesn't prove it on the court? And Connors' career was longer and he had his big decline period already.

Click to expand...

You also have to factor in which type of event they played. Suppose a player A is equally gifted as a player B, but player A plays on all ATP250 while player B plays on all Master Series. Guess who's is likey have a better winning percentage? More likely player A since small events aren't competitive as the bigger events(MS) where all the top players compete. Connors played a lot of small events and many are in the states, so it makes it easier for him.

You also have to factor in which type of event they played. Suppose a player A is equally gifted as a player B, but player A plays on all ATP250 while player B plays on all Master Series. Guess who's is likey have a better winning percentage? More likely player A since small events aren't competitive as the bigger events(MS) where all the top players compete. Connors played a lot of small events and many are in the states, so it makes it easier for him.

Click to expand...

Connors also played Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Newcombe, Vilas, Dibbs, Solomon, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Sampras (yes Pete), Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Gonzalez, Roche, Gimeno, Noah, Leconte, Gottfried, Ramirez, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Tanner, Higueras, Gene Mayer, Clerc, Arias, Krickstein, Mecir, Gomez, Curren, Courier, Chang most of which he had a plus record. Many of the ones like Sampras, Courier, Chang and Agassi he played during really late in his decline period and was yet was still fairly competitive even though he did not win. Connors played many of them in majors.

Let's not make it ridiculous here. Federer played a number of easy tournaments too and Connors played plenty of huge super tough events. Yes Connors played the weak Pepsi Grand Slam against weak players like Borg and Gerulaitis. If the Pepsi existed today Federer would probably be playing Nadal on har tru. What would happen? And we still have to factor in the years in which Connors lost much more often by percentage in his later years on the tour. Your theory does not hold water. Just assume the competition was equal. They both played a huge variety of tournaments so just assume they both played the same level of tournaments overall.

People have complained about Federer having no competition at his peak and even now except for Djokovic and Nadal. I don't think there is any proof of that and I reject that. So don't use the Connors played weak competition argument. Connors played everyone.

Connors played to a late age and was still competitive as proven by his result in the 1991 US Open.

Connors also played Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Newcombe, Vilas, Dibbs, Solomon, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Sampras (yes Pete), Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Gonzalez, Roche, Gimeno, Noah, Leconte, Gottfried, Ramirez, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Tanner, Higueras, Gene Mayer, Clerc, Arias, Krickstein, Mecir, Gomez, Curren, Courier, Chang most of which he had a plus record. Many of the ones like Sampras, Courier, Chang and Agassi he played during really late in his decline period and was yet was still fairly competitive even though he did not win. Connors played many of them in majors.

Let's not make it ridiculous here. Federer played a number of easy tournaments too and Connors played plenty of huge super tough events. Yes Connors played the weak Pepsi Grand Slam against weak players like Borg and Gerulaitis. If the Pepsi existed today Federer would probably be playing Nadal on har tru. What would happen? And we still have to factor in the years in which Connors lost much more often by percentage in his later years on the tour. Your theory does not hold water. Just assume the competition was equal. They both played a huge variety of tournaments so just assume they both played the same level of tournaments overall.

People have complained about Federer having no competition at his peak and even now except for Djokovic and Nadal. I don't think there is any proof of that and I reject that. So don't use the Connors played weak competition argument. Connors played everyone.

Connors played to a late age and was still competitive as proven by his result in the 1991 US Open.

Click to expand...

...and he also played Orantes,Rosewall ( on grass and clay) and, of course, Jan Kodes¡¡¡

The level of great players Connors has had to face, I don´t think any other player in tennis history, except maybe Ken Rosewall, can compare.

Well it's nice to talk about the players winning many titles in the past but I don't think you can take them seriously when compare to the ATP titles. Pancho was competing against the amateur and then the pro, which was divided into 2 circuits. That alone doesn't have as much weight as the atp events which comprise all all the players. Factor in the number of draws and number of matches needed to win per event. Didn't Pancho won many events which only required to win 1 or 2 matches? I don't care if Pancho won 50 mini events like Los Angeles Metropolitan, it's not worth equal to Roger's one grand slam title.

Link from PC1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics
If you look at January in 1954, Pancho won 9 titles, winning some titles only 2 days apart. It's ridiculous...he must only have to win one match. Today's player can only managed to compete 2 events per month, and winning atleast 4 matches quadruple his chance to win the event. In fact, Nadal/Nole/Fed each only participated in 19 or 20 events per year.

Anyway, comparing players like Pancho's total titles to the players competing from the atp standard is flaw. You can list all of their single titles, but the experts will always have Connors as the record holder(109). You can fool some of the posters in here, but not me.

Click to expand...

No one is trying to fool anyone. That series, if it's the one I think it is was unique but I believe Gonzalez did win a number of matches to win the tournaments. The Pepsi Grand Slam required two match wins to win the tournament and no one complained.

Kodes won a memorable Roland Garros final over one of the decade´s toughest guys, a certain Ilie Nastase.The year before, he had beaten a great clay specialist named Zeljko Franulovic.Federer won once the FO, beating handily surprise ( and deservingly so) finalsit Soderling, who had ousted Nadal in the former rounds.

Kodes also reached 2 IO and won the very prestigious German and Spanish Open.Federer, I think, has 2 Madrids and 1 Hamburg titles as far as second tier cc events are rated, so, they may be evened there.But the FO is, by far, the measure of clay court greatness...

I will give you that statistically Federer is better in the majors but the better dominance comment doesn't pan out. If Federer is more dominant, why is his lifetime winning percentage slightly lower than Connors at 81.55 to 81.76? If Federer is more dominant he certainly doesn't prove it on the court? And Connors' career was longer and he had his big decline period already.

Click to expand...

Its never a straight-forward comparison ...

Put it this way: both faced good competition at the top level events, but connors played more of the smaller ones ...hence connors' winning % goes up ....

even some of the smaller events those days, top players avoided each other many of the times ...

nowadays, even at the smaller events, top players face each other , take doha for example , where almost all of federer, nadal, djoker, murray etc play... or even basel, where djokovic played in 2009-10 ...

secondly federer was a headcase at the start of his career and till about 2003 , his winning % was "only" close to 63% ...

when you talk about dominance , you talk first about the peak periods and more about the major events and then come to the winning %s

even counting his best years, 74,76 and 82, it still doesn't match up ...

connors won AO ( depleted ), Wimbledon and USO in 74 ... did not play in FO, masters or the WCT tour where he had the most chance of getting defeated ..

in 76, he won USO and philly, but lost in QF of wimbledon to tanner ...

in 82, he won wimbledon and USO, but lost in quarters to higueras at the FO, and to lendl at the masters ...

thirdly, connors played less on his weakest surface , red clay .... than federer on his , red clay ... and this has a huge impact ...

and the biggest thing of all, you put too much stock into the winning %s , rather than on the bigger events

for example, federer was only 61-12 in 2009 , he was 64-12 in 2011 ... but most who saw him play would say he was easily better in 2009 ... he won the FO and wimbledon in 2009 and lost the AO and USO finals in 5 setters ...
in 2011, he didn't win a single major ... lost to tsonga once, djoker twice, nadal once in majors ....

His winning % in 2011 is higher because he played more indoor events ( where he was more dominant ) and was slightly better in the smaller events in general ...But in the big events, 2009 federer was easily better ... the more feared one ...

It's not as though Connors played awful players on hard courts. He played Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe, Panatta, Nastase. On har tru he played Borg, Vilas, Orantes, McEnroe, Solomon, Dibbs among others and more than once for many of them. He played virtually all of these names indoors and some others like Rod Laver. He played Newcombe, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall, Tanner, Ashe, Stan Smith on grass.

At their peaks both were winning over 90% of their matches. Connors didn't play many majors at his peak and Federer did.

Click to expand...

yes, he didn't play as many majors as federer did, but even including the other big events ( Dallas, Masters, philly ) etc ... connors did not win as many big events as federer has ...

Kramer is tougher to examine. Kramer was the best player in the world for years and he was winning all those head to head tours. And he did win a number of amateur and pro majors. At his best Kramer was clearly comparable to Federer. Over his career it's tougher because of the tours. Overall I would go with Federer over Kramer for career.

I'm not saying Connors is better than Federer but I am saying it's not the easy choice some would think it would be because of the ASSUMPTION that Federer is the de facto GOAT.

Put it this way: both faced good competition at the top level events, but connors played more of the smaller ones ...hence connors' winning % goes up ....

even some of the smaller events those days, top players avoided each other many of the times ...

nowadays, even at the smaller events, top players face each other , take doha for example , where almost all of federer, nadal, djoker, murray etc play... or even basel, where djokovic played in 2009-10 ...

secondly federer was a headcase at the start of his career and till about 2003 , his winning % was "only" close to 63% ...

when you talk about dominance , you talk first about the peak periods and more about the major events and then come to the winning %s

even counting his best years, 74,76 and 82, it still doesn't match up ...

connors won AO ( depleted ), Wimbledon and USO in 74 ... did not play in FO, masters or the WCT tour where he had the most chance of getting defeated ..

in 76, he won USO and philly, but lost in QF of wimbledon to tanner ...

in 82, he won wimbledon and USO, but lost in quarters to higueras at the FO, and to lendl at the masters ...

thirdly, connors played less on his weakest surface , red clay .... than federer on his , red clay ... and this has a huge impact ...

and the biggest thing of all, you put too much stock into the winning %s , rather than on the bigger events

for example, federer was only 61-12 in 2009 , he was 64-12 in 2011 ... but most who saw him play would say he was easily better in 2009 ... he won the FO and wimbledon in 2009 and lost the AO and USO finals in 5 setters ...
in 2011, he didn't win a single major ... lost to tsonga once, djoker twice, nadal once in majors ....

His winning % in 2011 is higher because he played more indoor events ( where he was more dominant ) and was slightly better in the smaller events in general ...But in the big events, 2009 federer was easily better ... the more feared one ...

not quite true, partly as I've explained above ...

I don't think who is/was better red clay and grass are in dispute, are they ?

now HCs ( indoor and outdoor ) are closer - but federer has won more of the bigger events there, a better % of the bigger events once they hit their peak .......

not going into har-tru as federer has not played on it ...

yes, he didn't play as many majors as federer did, but even including the other big events ( Dallas, Masters, philly ) etc ... connors did not win as many big events as federer has ...

It's not as though I'm arguing Connors is better but I looked more carefully and see Connors winning a ton of very strong tournaments. Yes Federer has more Year End Masters and More Majors but Connors has the majors, YEM and WCT Championships plus a lot more plain regular strong tournaments. And we cannot forget the extra 70 some odd tournaments Connors won in which he played guys like Borg like the US Clay Courts in 1974 which is a very prestigious title.

Not trying to be stubborn but I still don't see the wide gap that you see in examining everything. I'm trying to look at the total of competition throughout the career and in my opinion the level of competition was relatively equal yet the percentages are very close.

Remember that Connors first really good year was 1973 and his first dominant year was 1974. He didn't set the world on fire either from the beginning, the same as Federer.

You stated that Federer is better on most surfaces yet the percentages favor Connors by a fraction. I assume the level of competition is equal so where is the big gap? Sorry I don't see it.

For arguments sake I'll give you that Federer's career is more impressive but I don't see a big gap or greater dominance by a huge margin by Federer.

Connor's lifetime achievements still exceed Federer's. But, he did have 9 more years of world class competition than Federer, so far. On the other hand, peak Federer, from 2004-2007, dominated more continuously and for a longer time than peak Connors, 1974 and 1982, with an 8 year gap coinciding with Borg's career.

Connor's lifetime achievements still exceed Federer's. But, he did have 9 more years of world class competition than Federer, so far. On the other hand, peak Federer, from 2004-2007, dominated more continuously and for a longer time than peak Connors, 1974 and 1982, with an 8 year gap coinciding with Borg's career.

Click to expand...

Well Connors was number one in 1976 and was quite strong afterwards. He did average winning over 90% of his matches over five years. That's pretty dominant.

Connors also played Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Newcombe, Vilas, Dibbs, Solomon, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Sampras (yes Pete), Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Gonzalez, Roche, Gimeno, Noah, Leconte, Gottfried, Ramirez, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Tanner, Higueras, Gene Mayer, Clerc, Arias, Krickstein, Mecir, Gomez, Curren, Courier, Chang most of which he had a plus record. Many of the ones like Sampras, Courier, Chang and Agassi he played during really late in his decline period and was yet was still fairly competitive even though he did not win. Connors played many of them in majors.

Click to expand...

I skimmed through some of Connors 109 titles and I find plenty of events that he didn't face against any of the players you mentioned above. Just because his longevity overlapped many great players doesn't mean he was always facing them. Fed can play for another 10 years and we can stock pile a bunch of more great players to make his career look even more impressive. Connors didn't win anything significant when he was old anyway. Suppose a future 39 years old Fed had to face another few more great players like Nole and Nadal, you can say the same for him having to face so many great players just like Connors. As abmk pointed out, winning the important events is more insightful because you are being tested. An average player can win a mickey mouse event, but his chance is drastically reduce when playing a bigger event(i.e. Master Series). Since Connors won more titles than Fed, why did he only end up with 8 slams while Roger won(so far) 16 plus 23 finals? And JMac won more titles than Sampras, but no one in their right mind would say JMac had a better career.

People have complained about Federer having no competition at his peak and even now except for Djokovic and Nadal. I don't think there is any proof of that and I reject that. So don't use the Connors played weak competition argument. Connors played everyone.

Click to expand...

Which people? You mean nadal fans like Nadal Slam King and The Dark Knight? The theory is foolish and many members have ripped them apart. Fed is competing against the same field as them. Since 2005, Nadal won 10 slams and Fed won 12. So whether how these silly fans argue strong or weak field, either Fed/Nole/Nadal are facing strong or weak field, but you can't have both way. In contrast to Connors vs Fed, they are a few generations apart, or competing against a complete different field.

It's not as though I'm arguing Connors is better but I looked more carefully and see Connors winning a ton of very strong tournaments. Yes Federer has more Year End Masters and More Majors but Connors has the majors, YEM and WCT Championships plus a lot more plain regular strong tournaments. And we cannot forget the extra 70 some odd tournaments Connors won in which he played guys like Borg like the US Clay Courts in 1974 which is a very prestigious title.

Not trying to be stubborn but I still don't see the wide gap that you see in examining everything. I'm trying to look at the total of competition throughout the career and in my opinion the level of competition was relatively equal yet the percentages are very close.

Remember that Connors first really good year was 1973 and his first dominant year was 1974. He didn't set the world on fire either from the beginning, the same as Federer.

Click to expand...

but federer was more of a headcase and his initial years from 99-2002 , had a pretty terrible winning % as a result of that ...

63% in those years and that is a terrible % when it comes to all time greats ..his % since 2003 is 87.58 ....just for comparision, its a difference of light years frankly ..

For arguments sake I'll give you that Federer's career is more impressive but I don't see a big gap or greater dominance by a huge margin by Federer.

Click to expand...

% wise, there isn't a big difference at all, I agree, but big events wise, there is some gap ... again, like I pointed out the example of federer 2009 and 2011, I value the big tournaments over % results ... its a more accurate indicator IMO ...

The same suada over and over again, Fed was too old, or was too young, or was a headcase - yawn, what is this boring. Fact is, Connors faced statistically as scientist showed, better competition, played many more years, and still has a better win-loss percentage. Take it and be quiet.

The same suada over and over again, Fed was too old, or was too young, or was a headcase - yawn, what is this boring. Fact is, Connors faced statistically as scientist showed, better competition, played many more years, and still has a better win-loss percentage. Take it and be quiet.

No one is trying to fool anyone. That series, if it's the one I think it is was unique but I believe Gonzalez did win a number of matches to win the tournaments. The Pepsi Grand Slam required two match wins to win the tournament and no one complained.

Click to expand...

there are other titles that Pancho won within 1 or 2 days apart. These individual title is equivalent to Fed's winning one match.

Keep saying that if it helps you sleep well at night. As I've stated before, Connors playing more on mini events improve his winning percentage. Keep in mind Roger played consistently across all surfaces and is the only player to win 50+ matches on all 4 slams. How much did Connors played on all surfaces? How much did he played on his worst surface? These are also a factor in determine a player's winning %.

Keep saying that if it helps you sleep well at night. As I've stated before, Connors playing more on mini events improve his winning percentage. Keep in mind Roger played consistently across all surfaces and is the only player to win 50+ matches on all 4 slams. How much did Connors played on all surfaces? How much did he played on his worst surface? These are also a factor in determine a player's winning %.

Click to expand...

Connors won on all surfaces. He even won a major on clay, the 1976 US Open. And Connors won 98 matches at the US Open and 84 matches at Wimbledon.

But ambk have pointed out that Connors played little on his worst surface(clay).

Would you agree had Muster spent more times on other surfaces rather than so much on clay his winning % would drop ? Certainly.

Click to expand...

I agree for Muster, he was a unidimensional guy, but Connors, other than winning the US Open on clay, also won important clay court events at Indianapolis ( with wins over Borg and Vilas in different years,as well as other great cc like Dibbs and Higueras), won North Conway ( beat Lendl,Rosewall,Solly,Dibbs), Boston and others.clay wasn´t his best surface but he was not any bad there.

Fed has made 32 (or 33?) consecutive GS Quarterfinals or better. That is simply unbelievable and doubt anyone will ever break his record as he adds to it. (JSC had the previous record at 27 but lots of missed events involved.)

I would have to give the nod to Fed, but JSC was a great player and made the US Open Semis when he was 39 which says it all.

The fact that Federer reached 32 QF is really impressive and shows his level of dominacy.But tennis has changed a lot and there are no specialists like in Connors time.Reason is the homogenisation of surfaces, which allows a player to play exactly the same kind of game, and his opponent will also play the same kind of game.Fed just has a superior " same kind of game" than the rest ( and in his prime, probably better than Nadal or Djokovic prime )

The fact that Federer reached 32 QF is really impressive and shows his level of dominacy.But tennis has changed a lot and there are no specialists like in Connors time.Reason is the homogenisation of surfaces, which allows a player to play exactly the same kind of game, and his opponent will also play the same kind of game.Fed just has a superior " same kind of game" than the rest ( and in his prime, probably better than Nadal or Djokovic prime )

Click to expand...

Wow this might be one of the better posts around. This is basically exactly the way I see things. There is a rank and file effect.

Fed has made 32 (or 33?) consecutive GS Quarterfinals or better. That is simply unbelievable and doubt anyone will ever break his record as he adds to it. (JSC had the previous record at 27 but lots of missed events involved.)

I would have to give the nod to Fed, but JSC was a great player and made the US Open Semis when he was 39 which says it all.

Click to expand...

who gives a cr**p? Only titles matter. Nobody remembers semi-finalists or the quarters. Only federer fanatics worship mediocrity.

Fed prime would own Connors prime IMHO. There are still specialists in the sense that some are better on fast courts, some better on slower surfaces. In Connors' prime, more of the GS were on grass courts. How many majors would Fed have if the AO and USO were still played on fast grass?

The game has changed, many more 2HBH's now (when JCS was young a two handed BH was a novelty), better returning (and slower grass) has killed serve and volley even on grass. Serving is bigger in general, as are groundies. Bigger talent pool, bigger money, better athletes, etc.

JCS was a great player no doubt. Fed has a much bigger game IMHO. For one, Connors didn't have much of a serve.

Not a ******* but I gave the man his due. He is an awesome player whether you like him, or not. He also won 16 majors which you seem to conveniently overlook. :roll: Only a true **** wouldn't appreciate the gigantic accomplishment of making 32 straight GS Quarters or better. It will never happen again.

Not a ******* but I gave the man his due. He is an awesome player whether you like him, or not. He also won 16 majors which you seem to conveniently overlook. :roll: Only a true **** wouldn't appreciate the gigantic accomplishment of making 32 straight GS Quarters or better. It will never happen again.

Click to expand...

16 majors is of course one of the greatest accomplishments ever which no one can overlook. *******s though want people to believe that federer's failures (semi/quarters) should be a criteria by itself when speaking of "GOAThood".

One thing I do question is the notion that the game is tougher today? Is it really? By that logic all the women should be super brawny like the Incredible Hulk and yet you have tiny females like Justine Henin dominating just a few years ago. I wouldn't call Kim Clijsters a super brawny player either but I do think she's a gifted talent. How tough can these guys be if they complain about blue clay? Some of the past players played in the worst possible conditions, like in terrible rainstorms.

Click to expand...

I didnt say the game was tougher. I said it was more physically punishing. I think in many respects the game was tougher back then. However there is no denying it has never been harder to prevent injuries, continue playing at a high level longer, play with total frequency, than it is today. That is why you cant accurately compare tournament wins, nothing to do with tougher competition or anything like that, just the nature of the game. Like I said do you really believe, unless many things about the structure of the game itself changes, you will see anyone, no matter how great they are, come close to the tournament wins of Navratilova, Evert, Court, Laver, Connors, or Rosewall. I sure dont. It cant just be coincidence everyone was playing until 40 back then, and today hardly anyone makes it past 30 on the tour. I dont know all the reasons for this, probably one is that everyone today is a baseline which forces players into punishing rallies match after match. The number of hard court events is a huge factor I believe, those are much harder on the body than the natural surfaces they used to play on, and I think you would see less injuries, people playing more, and people having longer carries with more grass and clay (and carpet) events and less of the monopolization of hard courts like todays schedules have.

I didnt say the game was tougher. I said it was more physically punishing. I think in many respects the game was tougher back then. However there is no denying it has never been harder to prevent injuries, continue playing at a high level longer, play with total frequency, than it is today. That is why you cant accurately compare tournament wins, nothing to do with tougher competition or anything like that, just the nature of the game. Like I said do you really believe, unless many things about the structure of the game itself changes, you will see anyone, no matter how great they are, come close to the tournament wins of Navratilova, Evert, Court, Laver, Connors, or Rosewall. I sure dont. It cant just be coincidence everyone was playing until 40 back then, and today hardly anyone makes it past 30 on the tour. I dont know all the reasons for this, probably one is that everyone today is a baseline which forces players into punishing rallies match after match. The number of hard court events is a huge factor I believe, those are much harder on the body than the natural surfaces they used to play on, and I think you would see less injuries, people playing more, and people having longer carries with more grass and clay (and carpet) events and less of the monopolization of hard courts like todays schedules have.

Click to expand...

That's because the racquets are bigger and the courts are slower. And, everyone wasn't playing until 40 "back then." Gonzales, Rosewall and Connors were abberations from a time when courts were faster, racquets were smaller, and points were shorter.

The same suada over and over again, Fed was too old, or was too young, or was a headcase - yawn, what is this boring. Fact is, Connors faced statistically as scientist showed, better competition, played many more years, and still has a better win-loss percentage. Take it and be quiet.

Click to expand...

another clueless, biased post from the so called historian.

The so called scientific study only considered wins against the other top players, not losses. But then you guys only know how to take these so called studies when they support your point of view ...

Fact is connors had a losing H2H vs almost all the #1s he faced ...

Fact is connors played very less on red clay, which was by far his worst surface.

Fact is connors played many mickey mouse events that inflated his winning %.

I agree for Muster, he was a unidimensional guy, but Connors, other than winning the US Open on clay, also won important clay court events at Indianapolis ( with wins over Borg and Vilas in different years,as well as other great cc like Dibbs and Higueras), won North Conway ( beat Lendl,Rosewall,Solly,Dibbs), Boston and others.clay wasn´t his best surface but he was not any bad there.

Click to expand...

red clay is pretty different from green clay ( har tru ) ... connors won plenty of events on har tru, not so much on red clay ...

Because he played into his early 40s. He had winning head-to-heads against McEnroe and Lendl before he started to age and they started to hit their peaks. It was 1984 that turned the McEnroe rivalry around (McEnroe's peak), and it was 1985 and onwards when Lendl could actually beat Connors in big matches.

I would be careful, to bring in head to heads with main rivals. But again, i refer to my previous post.

Click to expand...

Fed faced the goat on clay(Nadal) at the FO many times, yet, he still managed to win 50(and counting) matches on this red clay. How many times did Connors ever met his main rival(Borg) at the FO? Oh wait, none.